NYT - 7/13/10 - "Gravity Does Not Exist", but pseudoscience rules
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 14 Jul 2010 11:31 On Jul 14, 11:19 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:01:34 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >> To think a C-60 molecule can travel through the material in between > >> the slits and not require energy, lose energy, or have a change in > >> momentum is ridiculous nonsense. > > <snip> > > > > >If the particle was able to travel through the material separating the > >slits then why is the particle never detected if a detector is placed > >at the end of the material separating the slits? Why is the particle > >only always detected exiting the open slit? Now, if you say it is a > >probability then I will have to re-quote de Broglie where he explains > >how a statistical probability does not explain what occurs physically > >in nature. > > In the model I was describing, the positions where a particle could be > detected would depend on the localization process. > > Different theories about that exist, but here is one (The CSL Model) > that seems well developed. > > How Stands Collapse I > Philip Pearlehttp://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611211 > > How Stands Collapse II > Philip Pearlehttp://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611212 > > Its possible that something as big as a C60 model would be localized > at all times (a tennis ball certainly would be). If that were the case > the molecule would only be able to pass through one slit as you > suggest, but an interference pattern would probably not be very > pronounced in that case. > > However individual photons have no trouble interfering even after > being split into two components sent down different arms of a > Michelson interferometer. The photon 'particle' travels a single path and enters and exits a single slit. The photon wave enters and exits multiple slits and creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the associated photon wave and there is no interference. The photon 'particle' occupies a very small region of the photon wave. The photon particle may very well exist as part of the wave itself.
From: PD on 14 Jul 2010 16:25 On Jul 13, 11:43 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...(a)amherst.edu> wrote: > Sigh, > > If you wanted proof that theoretical physics has left the world of > reason and wandered into the swamp of untestable postmodern > pseudoscience, braying like a crude drunk, just read Dennis Overbye's > piece in the Science Times section of today's NYT [7/13/10]. > > General Relativity has been considered one of mankind's finest > achievements. But our heroic string theorists, unrestrained by the > principles of science, would blithely throw it out the window into the > trashbin. > > In place of GR, the much-deluded Verlinde offers hand-waving about > poorly defined and unmeasurable abstractions: information, entropy and > holographic screens. His speculations cannot make a single definitive > prediction [and the same has been true for string theory in general > over the last 30 years] whereby the speculations could be considered > scientific. > > Does the community of theoretical physicists protest? Not much. > Perhaps the majority see a long-term feeding trough in this untestable > pseudoscience stuff? > > What has happened to science? Has it run its course? Are we to go > back to Ptolemaic thinking, wherein the critical Definitive > Predictions/Empirical Testing of science is jettisoned in favor of > revealed [by the theoretical physicists themselves, of course] > "religion"? > > RLOwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw You're spending too much time watching popularizations and not enough time reading the literature which might provide you with the actual predictions of the holographic conjecture and so on. PD
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 14 Jul 2010 18:42 On Jul 14, 4:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > You're spending too much time watching popularizations and not enough > time reading the literature which might provide you with the actual > predictions of the holographic conjecture and so on. ----------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps you would like to tell us what the "actual predictions of the holographic conjecture" might be. Does Paul the German octopus "seer" make the predictions? Please give us the details. ;) [ I'll bet jesters cannot even come up with one ]
From: mpc755 on 14 Jul 2010 19:30 On Jul 14, 11:19 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:01:34 -0700 (PDT), mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >> To think a C-60 molecule can travel through the material in between > >> the slits and not require energy, lose energy, or have a change in > >> momentum is ridiculous nonsense. > > <snip> > > > > >If the particle was able to travel through the material separating the > >slits then why is the particle never detected if a detector is placed > >at the end of the material separating the slits? Why is the particle > >only always detected exiting the open slit? Now, if you say it is a > >probability then I will have to re-quote de Broglie where he explains > >how a statistical probability does not explain what occurs physically > >in nature. > > In the model I was describing, the positions where a particle could be > detected would depend on the localization process. > > Different theories about that exist, but here is one (The CSL Model) > that seems well developed. > > How Stands Collapse I > Philip Pearlehttp://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611211 > > How Stands Collapse II > Philip Pearlehttp://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611212 > > Its possible that something as big as a C60 model would be localized > at all times (a tennis ball certainly would be). If that were the case > the molecule would only be able to pass through one slit as you > suggest, but an interference pattern would probably not be very > pronounced in that case. > The double-slit experiment http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/9745 'Since then particle interference has been demonstrated with neutrons, atoms and molecules as large as carbon-60 and carbon-70." If the C-60 molecule passes through one slit and creates an interference pattern, what alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels? A moving C-60 molecule has an associated dark matter displacement wave. If a C-60 molecule has an associated dark matter displacement wave then all moving particles have associated dark matter displacement waves. > However individual photons have no trouble interfering even after > being split into two components sent down different arms of a > Michelson interferometer.
From: spudnik on 14 Jul 2010 22:55
probably would require 3d glasses -- now, take them off! seriously, holography is a very nice subject, easy to do, now-a-days (I say, in my usual, *do* as I say, mode .-) > Perhaps you would like to tell us what the "actual predictions of the > holographic conjecture" might be. --les ducs d'oil! http://tarpley.net |